Though 100 years of decommissioning sounds absurd, considering that the French got rid of their much faster, even though gas reactors produce far more contaminated construction waste compared to ordinary reactors. It might be almost as much as an order of magnitude more.
PS. The reactors at Kozloduy weren't RBMK's but VVER's (=Soviet PWR's) which could well have been modernized and kept online for a few more decades.
PPS. This story makes me feel inspired to continue my long dormant "Nuclear Renaissance in Europe"-series. :-) Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I hope you do pick up your series again, I'll look forward to reading! Ad astra per aspera
The problem with decomissioning the gas reactors is that the moderators are big graphite blocks, the same things that cut the lifetimes of the plants as they crack due to irradiation. Much nicer in LWR's where the moderator is water, which can't become radioactive (any radioactive particles are captured in filters which are then treated as intermediate level waste, 500 year storage in cave). Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I think it'll turn out to be pretty moot anyway: no more than a handful of new nukes will get built before the country melts down, credit is crunched, and demand destroyed. So it will not really qualify as "infrastructure". Pierre
